Tír Na HiFi

sbgk wrote:

nige2000 wrote:
taskkill /fi "PID gt 0" /IM squeezelite-win.exe /F >nul

thits is throwing up an error message
whats it do?

otherwise good improvement

lol, clue is in the name, tries to stop the squeezelite.exe process.

if you're starting from a batch file might as well use the -q setting for extra sonic excellence.

also heard that putting slimserver on a ram drive can inprove things, something else to try.

am impressed by v22, nice separation of instruments and bass slam.

That's what I thought
Its trying to kill what's not running

V22 not better than mqn yet
But it does have a nice flow I'm sure it will come
And it's not feckin noise stop saying that its annoying

nige2000 wrote: And it's not feckin noise stop saying that its annoying

It's true though. If I produce a player without any decode or streaming buffers, what do you think it will sound like ? It's not going to sound more digital, that's for sure.
You would think I would know the sound of digital noise by now and that's what I hear with smaller buffers.

sbgk wrote:

nige2000 wrote: And it's not feckin noise stop saying that its annoying

It's true though. If I produce a player without any decode or streaming buffers, what do you think it will sound like ? It's not going to sound more digital, that's for sure.
You would think I would know the sound of digital noise by now and that's what I hear with smaller buffers.

maybe your digital noise is more hardware than software,
one thing for certain we've certainly lowered the noise floor with modifications and cleaner power

nige2000 wrote:

sbgk wrote:

nige2000 wrote: And it's not feckin noise stop saying that its annoying

It's true though. If I produce a player without any decode or streaming buffers, what do you think it will sound like ? It's not going to sound more digital, that's for sure.
You would think I would know the sound of digital noise by now and that's what I hear with smaller buffers.

maybe your digital noise is more hardware than software,
one thing for certain we've certainly lowered the noise floor with modifications and cleaner power

don't know, how do you know you haven't overdamped the sound and now require a livelier player to make it sound dynamic ?

Hopefully, removing the decode and stream buffering will improve things, I tried to get a standalone ks player going this weekend, but it wouldn't play, so ended up with v22 instead.

v22 has not got as clean a sound as I want, due to the streaming ? and trying to improve the sound by adjusting buffers doesn't work for me. So the next step is to remove the buffers/streaming, still think it has loads of potential.

sbgk wrote: don't know, how do you know you haven't overdamped the sound and now require a livelier player to make it sound dynamic ? [quote}

not sure what you mean
only things that ive tried that dampened sound was a car battery feeding the whole system, Fidizlizer and Audiophils script(oob), but i dont use those things

Hopefully, removing the decode and stream buffering will improve things, I tried to get a standalone ks player going this weekend, but it wouldn't play, so ended up with v22 instead.

pity i was looking forward to a standalone to remove any lms effect

v22 has not got as clean a sound as I want, due to the streaming ? and trying to improve the sound by adjusting buffers doesn't work for me. So the next step is to remove the buffers/streaming, still think it has loads of potential.

buffers seem to have great effect but i dont think its the answer we looking for
mqn has more agility, seems faster response especially to bass and highs

uploaded v24 which has various things removed which were not required, gives a cleaner harder hitting sound.

Nige, there are threads associated with the buffers and every cycle of the callback it is deciding whether to run a task to fill one or more of the buffers, not something you'd want going on in a minimalist player. Aim is to keep removing things until I understand what is going on and then make a standalone ks player. As someone said programming ks is not a trivial task.

sbgk wrote:...

I use -a 1 -b 1000:2000000 -q and don't have issues with edgy sound, think the smaller buffer sizes that some people prefer can introduce noise of their own, but some people like that.

Gordon

More details equals less jitter, better timing, and less noise.
Relaxed sound presentation equals less noise and less jitter.

Less jitter means:
- improved ease of listening
- increased clarity
- improved high frequency response
- better instrument separation
- more information
- better timing
- better soundstage
- improved overall audio performance

These effects are all correlated to measured jitter in audio.

These are the kind of things I feel MQn is still doing better than JLP.

I think many people think more details is 'digital sounding', but it is not. It is opposite, it is more true, it is more revealing. Details in bass are high frequency signals riding on top of low frequency.

The warm round, so called analogue sound is a limited level of reproduction with lack of details and a closed in character to the sound.
It is something I associate with the vinyl era, which is very limited by definition. Music mastered for vinyl production only expects to have a maximum of 16 kHz reproduction (if at that level at all) and in the lower ranges all is mastered as a mono signal and not a stereo signal.
Trying to reproduce a vinyl-like analogue character in sound reproduction is throwing away everything the new digital era is capable of, just because it sounds differently then some are used to hearing.

Cheers

Aleg

sbgk wrote: ...
would probably not have tried to search for a better solution. v22 really is excellent.

There are still people posting on various forums saying that the code can make no difference to the SQ.

eg

"Well-meaning automagic system "optimization" tools of any kind tend to create more problems than they solve. Besides, if you've got playback that already is free from stuttering and the like, there is no way it could get any better. Audio per se is in no way particularly taxing (heck, a 386 would output 16/44 audio via ISA DMA at rather negligible system load back in the day), it merely is a bit time-critical."

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/pc-based ... ost3802887

thankyou mr grossklass

Ignorance is still wide spread, ostrich like head in the sand even more widely.

Cheers

Aleg

Aleg, you've expressed a preference for certain buffer size combinations. Unless you've chosen the minimum buffers that work then you've just tuned the noise to the sound you like from your system, I find the smaller buffer sizes to be digital sounding which is consistent with anything that introduces higher frequencies into the playback chain whether it's system time, cpu frequency etc.

I've seen people describe the latest jplay 5.2 version as more digital sounding than the previous one, I would say that's a bad thing. I don't hear digital noise when I listen to a live band/orchestra, so I'm aiming for transparency.

Aleg wrote:

sbgk wrote: ...
would probably not have tried to search for a better solution. v22 really is excellent.

There are still people posting on various forums saying that the code can make no difference to the SQ.

eg

"Well-meaning automagic system "optimization" tools of any kind tend to create more problems than they solve. Besides, if you've got playback that already is free from stuttering and the like, there is no way it could get any better. Audio per se is in no way particularly taxing (heck, a 386 would output 16/44 audio via ISA DMA at rather negligible system load back in the day), it merely is a bit time-critical."

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/pc-based ... ost3802887

thankyou mr grossklass

Ignorance is still wide spread, ostrich like head in the sand even more widely.

Cheers

Aleg

This type of comment previously made me angry and defensive.
Now I don't care.... ;)

People like this are either incapable of hearing pretty obvious differences in SQ, or their just plan argumentative to prove a technical standpoint.

Its amazing these "technophiles" won't/don't invest the 5mins it takes to try for themselves, and if they do hear a difference they blame the utilisation of equalisation, or something silly.

Don't bite, let them miss out.
I get many comments in the same vain..... with similar arguments/viewpoints.
Just ignore and keep doing amazing work.

V24 sounds fantastic by the way, very nice....... nice space and dynamics.
2CA